Top o' the Stack.
I spent an intense and enjoyable five hours with Steven Nemes on Saturday. He's had it with philosophy and theology and is in process of reinventing himself as a novelist. So this one's for him.
John Gardner on Fiction and Philosophy
by
Tags:
Comments
2 responses to “John Gardner on Fiction and Philosophy”
-
Bill, you’re right that, regarding the question of whether philosophy or literature is superior, we need to ask: with respect to what?
I agree with you that philosophy is superior to literature regarding the conjunction of raising Big Questions and making rigorous progress toward answering them. Both disciplines raise Big Questions. But, as you note, literature doesn’t operate at a high enough altitude and doesn’t provide sufficiently rigorous arguments to make much progress. Philosophy makes better progress – though it hasn’t been able to settle many Big Questions conclusively.
One point stands out:
<< Primum vivere, deinde philosophari! Unfortunately, the novelist does not establish anything one way or the other. He doesn't establish whether or not the 'Zorbatic' or any other way is the way to go.<< Some stories promulgate ‘Primum vivere, deinde philosophari.’ Other stories, such as Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich, illustrate the problem with living first and philosophizing later, indicating that one should philosophize first, or at least philosophize while living. But literature doesn’t seem equipped to establish an answer either way. And I say that as a lover of good literature. (Philosophy gets much closer to establishing answers, even if it falls short in the end.) By the way, one problem with “Primum vivere, deinde philosophari” is that, given the human condition, one’s ‘philosophizing’ only after living might well be mere rationalization of a lifestyle one is already committed to and unwilling to change. Also, there seems to be a productive union of philosophy and literature in Plato’s dialogues. Speaking of Plato (and Socrates), the Socratic dictum that the unexamined life is not worth living is a rejection of ‘primum vivere, deinde philosophari.’ The Apology is a defense of philosophy as a way of life. -
FWIW I agree with Bill’s sentiment in the post about philosophy and literature in the sense of denying Gardner’s value judgment. And indeed there are many writers who just are not equipped with philosophical mindset. On a side note, the most surprising such case for me is Samuel Beckett who many times looks at the world philosophically even though he would actively deny any such thing (and he actually did in his letters).
Maybe it is needless to say, but good philosophy and good literature are good for the soul in their distinctive ways whereas bad philosophy and literature are not. And the relevant question for Steven Nemes, if I may, is what is he stronger at. The literary quality of writing matters, more so in fiction of course. The Death of Ivan Ilyich that Elliott brings as an example, or Madame Bovary or Waiting for Godot are all great for highlighting what’s philosophically important without doing any actual philosophy. Not everybody is as neutral as Maugham (and IMHO this purely observing stance weakens his book). Good writers are making deep philosophical points by concretely showing what has to be shown without too much preaching. So in the valuation game it is a draw between literature and philosophy and the lives lived accordingly. As long as quality is there.
Leave a Reply